Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shri Ram Chandra Mission (2nd nomination)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was keep. I see universal agreement that the page needs work. If this is the case, then please rewrite it. The only other !vote for delete was just as bad as several of the keep votes, some jibberish about the enlightenment of truth, with WP:ILIKEIT written all over them. Please do keep this article neutral. Note this is a nonadmin close. The Evil Spartan 18:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Shri Ram Chandra Mission (2nd nomination)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This is more of a relisting than a new nomination. This article was nominated for deletion on 28 June 2007 but almost all of the comments left were left by single purpose accounts or were unsigned, including 4 IPs. Some comments are so mixed up (due to liberal use of line breaks, few indents, and missing signatures) that I can hardly tell who said what. As such, I am renominating it. (The article also never had an AfD tag on it.) The main reasons for deletion (that were actually based on policies) were that it is too POV and does not have enough sources to back up some claims. The reasons for keeping were that the article is not that bad and only needs some cleanup. This is a procedural nomination, I have no opinion. Mr.Z-man  talk ¢ 20:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, if this group has been the subject of such things as French government studies, I think it passes the notability criteria. However, the article is bad enough that it needs a complete rewrite.  Nyttend 20:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, needs editing. Callelinea 21:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and clean-up Looks quite notable to me and it very well referenced, even though they are direct links and not put accordingly in a ref/note section.--JForget 22:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete, I was really on the fence on this one but, to me, it fails WP:PAPER. Specifically "readability considerations for everybody," this article is incredibly stilted and, I think, would only benefit from a reboot from a clean slate. Na uf ana  :  talk  23:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - no valid reasons given for deletion. Neither POV, nor needs cleanup nor not enough sources are valid arguments for deletion. There are tags for all of these. IPSOS (talk) 01:54, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - This article is useless in every way imaginable. It is so POV'd that nothing short of a complete rewrite is going to save it. All in all, this article is an example of the absolute worst that Wikipedia has to offer...HOWEVER, an article being bad isn't a reason to delete it, it's a reason to improve it. I see no reason to do anything except keep and improve it. Trusilver 15:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

KEEP With the offer of Truesilver to make available his (and his team's) "editing" skills, and all the "admins" available, this should become the most NPOV article yet on the site of the Great WIKI...lol. Now is time to bring your TRUTH forward and become a "believer".

I am a firm beleiver in the WIKI process and am curious to see what is not considered NPOV in the majority of the article. (I already know of some). There is already some editing taking place. I will be watching the process from the side-lines and applauding every "great play"... see you all after my surgery. All STAND for the WIKI Anthem!! lol ;-)) 4d-don--don 23:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep The first AFD was the best Meat-Puppet joke I have seen in 2 years. As for the article, it is getting better and better and there is not a single compelling reason to delete it. Sethie 00:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete - My fellow brothers (those who want to bring the truth out), TRUTH of a spiritual practice can only be found out by practicing it. Can you tell the taste of a mango simply by looking at it or seeing someone eating it? Secondly I would like to bring the attention to the PURPOSE of Wikipedia, is it to establish the truth or to make the information available which is most widely accepted as truth. Now obviously we can see that content of this article is heavily skewed and disputed, now how do you prove who is right here? Well, my question is why should Wikipedia go into resolving some people's conflict. It would be in its best interest to stay away from it. If at all this page is to be kept, it should give no more than references to the existing official websites of this organization and nothing at all. Having links to blogs showing them as references? Common Wikipedia has better standard than that, I truly believe in this. My sincere hopes, that admins will take necessary actions. - Duty2love 12:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 12:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

KEEP I am not your sister (or brother)(PR)! (I have my own family, given to me by the ONE). This article can be saved by any and/or all "of good faith". Those who would rather "HIDE" in their shame at the TEACHINGS of their MASTER and his METHODs, can do so. We who do not "adhere" to any "ISM", want a "referenced" article, not PR, which is what the article was before it became POV on the other side. NOW all WIKIans can BALANCE IT (and MAKE IT NPOV) and we will have "SERVED HUMANITY", and WIKI and its WIKI(ans) including US ALL!! '-)) jeanne--J.d&#39;arc 18:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, Notable, referenced and the delete votes do not sway me and are poor. Englishrose 09:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.